Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1887-05-21

".
Chief Justice Waite, in announcing the
decision OF the Supreme Court of the !,
United States, said: "The power oftaxa- !
ion is legislative and cannot be exercised !
than under the authority of the
And in the same case, page 81, Mr..
Justice Field, in delivering the concurring
opinion of himself, Mr. Justice Miller and
Mr.. Justic. Bradley, said: "The right of
the State to repeal the charter of Mem
phis cannot be questioned. Municipal cor
porations are mere instrumentalities of the
State for the more convenient administra-
ton of local government.
Their powers are such as the Legislature
may confer, and these may be enlarged,
abridged or entirely Withdrawn at its
pleasure. This is the common learning
founded in all the adjudications on the
subject Of municipal bodies and repeated
by text-writers. There is no contract be-
treen the State and the public that the charter
Of a city shall not be at all times subject to
Legislative control. All persons who deal
with such bodies are coaclusiueiy presumed
to act upon the knowledge of the power
of the Legislature. There is no such thing
as vested right held by any individuals
in the grant of the legislative power to
them. UNITED States VS.. Railroad Com
pany, II Wall, 322; Commissioners VS..
Lucas, SO US. 10S; People VS.. Morris, Is
Wend, New York, 325; Philadelphia vs.
Fox, GA Pa. ST., 1859; Montpelier VS.. East
East Montpelier, 30 VT, u; Angel and
Ames on Corp, 10th ed, Sec. 81 Dill
Nun. Corp. Sec. 80; Cooley Const. Lin.
1872, 1888. By the repeal the legislative
powers previously possessed by the cor
poration of Memphis reverted to the State.
"a portion of them the State Immediately
vested in the Government of the taxing
district, with many restrictions in the
creation of Indebtedness. A portion of
them the State retained; it reserved 10
the Legislature all powers of taxation. 1t
thus provided against the future claims
from the improvidence or recklessness of
the new Governors.
The power of the State to make this
change of local government is incontro-
vertible."
And the learned Justice at page SIS
said: The Courts cannot continue in force
the taxes levied, nor levy new taxes for
the payment of the debts of the corpora
ton. The levy of taxes is not a judicial
act. 1t has no elements of one. 1t is
high act of sovereignty, to be performed
by the Legislature upon considerations of
policy, necessity and the public welfare.
In the distribution of the powers of gov
eminent in this country into three depart
ments the powers of taxation falls to the
Legislature. 1t belongs to that depart
ment to determine what measures shall be
taken for the public welfare and to pro-
vide the revenues for the support and due
administration OF the government through
out the State and all its subdivisions"
Such is the doctrine adduced from the
division Of the government of the State
into three departments; but in this State
the power to alter or repeal the charters
of municipal corporation is expressly re-
served to the Legislature, and it is also en-
joined as duty upon the Legislature to
create municipal corporations and to re-
strict their powers of taxation and Of con-
tracing debts by Section 81 of Article ".
of the Constitution, in these words: at
shall be the duty of the Legislature 10
provide for the organization of cities and
incorporated villages, and to restrict their.
power of taxation, assessments, borrow
ing money, contracting debts and leaning
their credit so as to prevent abuses in
assessments and in contracting debts by
such municipal corporations" While this
provision of the Constitution makes it the
duty of the Legislature to restrict the
power of municipal corporations in the re-
spects mentioned in it, it does not limit
the power of the Legislature conferred by
Section 81 of the Constitution to alter or
repeal the charters. Under the Constitu-
ton of this State, no charter granted to a
municipal corporation, nor any powers
thereby granted, can become fixed and
Interchangeable like the laws of the Modes
and Persians.
The Legislature may change, alter, abol-
ish or repeal them at any time, and must
exercise restraining pouCer over them;
but when powers are granted to a munich
pality, such powers must be exercised until
revoked by the corporation ITSELF through
its proper Board or officers and cannot be
exercised by the Legislature itself. CPeo-
pie vs. Lynch, 81 Cal, 15.)
As the Constitution entered into and
formed part of these bonds and interest
coupons the reserve right to modify
or alter them as to the mode of
payment, or in any other respects,
is as much a part of the obligation of those
contrac.sas any stipulation written therein,
and the exercise of such reserve right or
power cannot, in any sense, impair the OBJ
legation of those contracts. The bond
holders were bound to take notice that
under the Constitution the Legislature
might restrict or withdraw the taxing
power altogether from the municipality.
and destroy its power to raise revenue to
pay the bonds, and if the Legislature did
SO, there were nomeans provided for in the
Constitution to compel it to restore to the
municipal corporation the power to impose
taxes, to raise revenue to pay its debts.
and, therefore, they must rely upon the
good faith of the State acting through the
Legislature, for payment
Though there are some expressions in
the opinion of the Court in Never VS..
Brown (65 Cal. $3.50 which are opposed to
the view | have expressed, they were not
necessary to the decision in that case.
Section % OF the Act of 1868, incorpor
ating the city of Sacramento. authorized
the levy of one dollar on the one hundred
dollars of taxable property in the city.
and Section 26 provided for paving ffty-
five per cent. of it into the interest and
sinking fund 1t was the duty. therefore
of the City Trustees to levy the tax, and
that is all that was necessary to decide.
The Court did not refer to the provisions
of the Constitution which reserved to the
Legislature the power to alter or repeal
the powers of the city Government and to
impose the duty upon the Legislature to
restrict the powers of taxation of the NUM-
cipalities. And, therefore, l cannot pre-
sumo that the Court intended to decide that
the Legislature might not, in the exercise
of its powers reserved in the Constitution.
withdraw the power of taxation and ali
other powers from municipal corporation
which would be to decide that the Con-
stitution did not mean what it said or that
the people could not make such a Consti-
tuition and | cannot think that such is the
meaning of the Court. And such a decis-
ion would be contrary to long line Of
decisions in this State, among which is
Sharp VS.. Contra Costa county, already
cited, IN which the Court said an this
case a sovereign is one of the con-
tracing parties; for the Government of